It can be appreciated that numerous attempts have been made to improve the performance of a bat. These prior attempts have included the addition of various shells, inserts, materials, and shapes of the bat in order to improve its performance or usage. For example, U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,867,114, 7,014,580, 6,949,038, 6,761,653 6,733,404, 6,663,517, 6,497,631, 6,398,675, 6,176,795, 6,022,282, 4,930,772, 4,331,330, and 3,990,699, and U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2002/0016230, 2002/0091022, 2005/0070384, 2010/0160095, 2011/0152015, 2013/0274039, and 2013/0165279 disclose various attempts to improve the performance or use of a bat.
The performance of a bat is generally based upon the weight of the bat, length of the bat, and the impact response of the bat at and during impact with a ball. Most of the focus for improvements in bat technology has been in improving the performance of the preferred impact area, or “sweet spot”. As the prior art bats have increased the performance in this area, many of the sports regulatory agencies have placed performance and/or configuration restrictions on the bats. For example, most regulatory bodies set a maximum performance level of a bat when a ball impacts the preferred impact area, or sweet spot, of that bat. Typically, this impact performance level is measured from the speed of the ball off the bat right after impact. The sweet spot is approximately four to eight inches, and usually five to seven inches, from the end cap end of the bat barrel and is the location on the bat that will typically produce the greatest batted ball performance.
Historically, the performance of a bat in areas adjacent to the sweet spot of that bat show significant reductions in performance. The contemporary bat art has made few attempts to improve the performance of the bat sections adjacent the preferred impact area. As such, the performance of the bats in areas distal from, and even adjacent to, the sweet spot dramatically drops for the conventional bats. The portion of the prior art that has attempted to address this need has drawbacks.
Further, the bat art has attempted to improve a batter's enjoyment, and to some level the batter's performance, of the batted ball game. This enjoyment can be substantially affected by the “feel”, or perception, a batter has with a particular bat. Some of this qualitative “feel” concept is controlled by the management of the vibrational energy transferred, or imparted, to the hands of the batter when a ball impacts the barrel of the bat. The concept, also known as shock or “sting”, is well known in the art. There have been numerous attempts to improve a batter's enjoyment by controlling the energy transfer to his/her hands.
For example, U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,572,197, 7,201,679, 7,128,670, 6,945,886, 6,929,573, 6,863,628, 6,743,127, 6,702,698, 5,593,158, 5,219,164, and U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2008/0064538 and 2011/0111892 disclose various attempts to improve the energy control or the shock attenuating features of a bat. Most of these prior attempts involve complicated structures, are ineffective in the energy dissipation, and/or substantially decrease the batted ball performance of the bat when so constructed.
Thus, there is a continuing need for improved overall performance of bats. These improved bats need to conform to the regulatory agencies' restrictions in the preferred hitting zone while performing well at locations location that are longitudinally outside the preferred hitting zone. These improved bats preferably increase the performance in locations adjacent the preferred hitting area/zone as compared to the preferred hitting zone. These improved bats, or features of a bat, are lacking in the art.
Further, there is a need for bats that facilitate a controlled energy transfer between the bat and the batter's hands upon a struck ball. These improved bats preferably facilitate an improved comfort to the batter while maintaining desired performance levels in the bat. These improved bats, or features of a bat, are lacking in the art.